#1067 - Cal Newport - The collapse of modern attention (and how to get it back)

Dude, you must be feeling like Cassandra at the moment. So pressy in the distraction, the necessity of deep work, the inherent bombardment of our attention. Do you feel like you saw the future earlier than what even at the time maybe felt late with deep work and focusing on quality over quantity and stuff? I mean, I think part of what I noticed was the present was crazy to me and no one else recognized it. So it was less even predicting the future. I feel like there was a time, guys, like 10 years ago now, where I was looking around and, yeah, saying two things. One, social media doesn't make sense. Why are we all pretending like this is at the center of democracy and civic life and all business and we all have to be on here all the time and two, email doesn't make sense. Not what was going to happen in the future. I'm just like looking at the way we're working today with email and Slack and Teams was coming, like this completely does not make sense. You're switching your context once every two or three minutes. This is a terrible way to actually use your brain. So I never thought of myself as predicting the future as much as just telling people what was going on then didn't make sense. Everyone thought I was crazy and 10 years later, it just kind of jumped from I was crazy to its common sense. So it's not even that interesting that I'm saying it anymore. So I kind of skipped the part where it sounded, press you in. Do you feel vindicated? I think certainly on a couple issues, the social media issue was a big one because I used to get a lot of flack for that. For going out and I wasn't even saying the social media was bad or that no one should use it. Really what I was pushing back on was just the idea of ubiquity, the idea that everyone had to use it. I said, this doesn't make sense. I get there some people this makes sense for. There's a lot of technologies that have markets that make sense for it. But why is there this pressure for everyone to be on these services? This is not going to a good place. They're spending a lot of money to mine attention and they're going to get better at it, right? And at the time, this was considered crazy. What do you mean? You want it you social media? I wrote a New York Times op ed back. I looked this up the other day was 2016 and it argued maybe social media is not the biggest thing for a young person to focus on if they think about their career. That's what it was. It was like focus on your career instead of social media. Actually doing things well is what really matters. And you would think that I had just come on and say like America has an idea is done and grandmother should be kicked. People were upset about this. The New York Times commission to response op ed two weeks later that was. It went through mine. I know and said this is what is wrong about Cal Newport's op ed or whatever because it made such a fear to suggest it. And today it's boring to suggest like, you know, social media has problems and most people probably shouldn't use it. People people agree with that. The one that upsets me though, that one I feel like people have come along to and more and more people are being much more selective than minimalists about their social media. The distraction emails slack, constantly jumping back and forth between different things. That just got worse. I mean, I think people recognize it now. This is probably not a good way to work. But I thought because there was dollars and cents here. This is less productive from an economic productivity standpoint to have all of your workers changing their attention all the time. You're just getting a really low return on all the money you're investing in these human brains. So I thought, oh, this is dollars and cents. This is the one that's going to change social media is fun. That's going to be hard to change people's behavior. But certainly this hyper distraction thing in knowledge work, that'll change because we're leaving money on the table. It hasn't changed at all. It's gotten worse. It's worse than it was. I'm at the 10-year anniversary now of the book Deep Work. So this like this month is the 10-year anniversary. It's what it's going to do. That's fucking seminal. That is become a part of the lexicon. That's really, really cool. Yeah, but it's got me a little bit depressed because I've been doing this 10-year reflection. It's been 10 years and the book was a hit and it's millions of copies, etc. The issues I talked about are really worse than they were 10 years ago. People know the problem. Nothing has changed. Does the data suggest around the worstness of it? The one I've been following, the study that I think it's useful is a trend line. Is Microsoft actually does this annual report where they gather data from Microsoft 365. It's like Office and Word and PowerPoint and Excel. Nowadays, you use the web-based version of these. It's very common. They can gather data from just tens of thousands of knowledge workers actually using all these different tools. The latest report they put out in 2025 now has the interruptions on average once every two minutes. It's just gotten out of control. Switching to a community control once every two minutes. They also found the latest report. This is depressing to me as well. There's one time in the week where they see a notable rise in the use of the noncommunication. Actually, using the core productivity tools like Word or PowerPoint and it Saturday and Sunday morning. We've just put the work off until the weekend when there's no expectations of responses and spend the actual weekdays talking about work. What I just don't get, that is not economically productive. Companies are leaving money on the table, but it's just where we are. We really can't quit this behavior. It's interesting that you had to try and appeal to a very utilitarian approach for this. That you didn't say this is probably making staff miserable. It's not a good use of time. We've got some really strong evidence that suggests that doing one thing and getting better at it over a protracted period of time actually makes you feel more satisfied. You get into a flow state, etc. etc. You look back on your day and you can look at the things that you did. None of that, which is the much more immediate experiential way that people interface with distraction. You tried to appeal to the bottom line, which you thought, "Well, you're incentives, incentives align the fucking incentives." That didn't work, which obviously means also that people's level of administrative burden misery is also coming along for the ride at the same time. It's a fucking mess, dude. I think even with what I do, it's not a very big team, but slack is like, it's so useful and invite so much chaos at the same time. It was slack. Slack wouldn't have been that big during deep work. I'm going to guess. It wasn't big. It wasn't out yet. I talked in deep work about these very early instant messenger tools that no longer exist. Hit chat. It was just emerging among the programmer class. I was basically saying, "There be dragons." Let's be careful about that. I wrote an article about slack years later when slack was bought. I think Salesforce bought slack. I wrote an article about it for the New Yorker. I think the title of that article gets to the core of the issue you're talking about. The title was, "The slack is the right tool for the wrong way to work." I think what happened. Here's my whole theory on slack. When email arrived, it moved us to this new style of collaboration that I call a hyperactive pipeline, where we'll just figure things out on the go with ad hoc, back-and-forth, unscheduled messaging, just shooting messages back and forth. We'll figure things out. We're all just connected all the time. That's a terrible way to work for all the reasons I talked about is distracting, it's context switching. You can't do anything deep. It's hard to produce value. But if that's the way you're going to work, email clients are not a very good tool for that. You have threads and it's clunky and it's hard to search through your email and find what you did before. So, slack came along and said, "Look, if this is the way you're going to work, hyperactive hive mind, constant back and forth ad hoc coordination, will build you a better tool for that." That's why people both love and hate slack. It's a really good tool for that style of collaboration. It works really well, but that style of collaboration makes us miserable. So, it's this weird love-hate relationship we have. This works great. I hate the thing that is making easier. Why does it make us miserable that style of collaboration? Because our brain isn't meant to switch our target of attention that quickly. It just takes us a long time if we're talking about targets that are abstract and symbolic. It takes us a long time to switch from one to another. Physical world targets we can switch quickly. We're wired for that. If there's a tiger's roar, I can boom. 100% attention what's going on over there. But when we're thinking about abstract things, information, ideas, things that are symbolic and in our head, that's us. We're basically reappropriating our brain hardware to do something we're not evolved to do. It takes a lot of effort to do symbolic thinking, to think about abstract concepts. We know it takes 10 to 20 minutes to fully change our attention context from one abstract target to another. It takes a long time. That's why if you sit down to write something, everyone has this experience. The first five or 10 minutes, like, "Man, this is terrible." I'm making no progress or whatever. Then after a while, you're like, "Oh, this is starting to flow like it's going better." That's because it took that much time for your brain to load up all of the relevant information and to inhibit all the unrelated circuits and get your brain really ready to do that activity. If you now interrupt that brain once every two minutes, it never can lock in on anything. What you feel then is this diffuse cognitive friction that we begin to experience as FIT-T, cognitive fatigue. It's a really frustrating experience. It's why if you go to an email inbox? I have time. I'm going to empty this inbox. I'm going to go message by message. Here's the best way to do it, right? On paper, I'm going to go message by message and I'm going to answer these messages. Why does that get so hard? Why do you find yourself like jumping around and looking for easier messages? Because each message is a different context than the other, and that's torture for the brain. It's really, really hard to go from, "All right, this is a complicated question when my employees is asking me." Now, this is a completely different issue, completely unrelated to that, where I have to think up a good title for something. Now, here's a completely different issue. You're trying to switch one after another. Our brains aren't wired for that. It really makes us unhappy. What would you say to someone who wants to try and retrain that attention? Maybe maybe they're going to try and make some sort of a stand inside of Slack and say, "I will only be available at certain times of the day," but regardless of the inbound, let's say that they fix the inbound because that's a totally separate problem. That's much more structural, unless you've got any advice for that as well. But how does someone go about re-apraising, retraining their mind away from that? Because we do become, we get like Stockholm syndrome. Slack Stockholm syndrome, where our capital, tormentor, becomes the way that we operate. We've got a favorite little ways of working and it feels like we've done. But then at the end of the day, we look back and have this sort of odd malaise thing about, "Well, what did I actually do today? What got done?" Well, not much. Not much got done. Yeah. Well, it's hard unilaterally. If you've changed nothing else about your workload or your communication protocols, if you just say, "I'm not going to be on Slack from this hour to this hour, I only checked my email twice a day," or whatever that standard advice was from 15 years ago. It doesn't work well because if you're involved in a large number of projects that are timely, and the way progress is going to be made is with ad hoc back-and-forth messaging. You have to be in there checking. That's the brutal part of the hyperactive hive mind, is that it has defenses to its elimination built into its very nature. Because if this is how we're going to figure this out, like we have to have five or six back-and-forth messages to figure out what we're going to do about this client coming tomorrow, and we have to get this done today, that means you have to see my next message right away so that we have time for me to answer you and you to answer me and for that ping-pong match to happen. That means you have to be checking your inbox or Slack constantly. Otherwise, you're not going to see my next message in time for this whole game to unfold. The very nature of that style of collaboration demands constant inbox checking, which is what I think people often get wrong about this. When I think about things like Slack or email, they think too often about either information like, "Oh, I've got so many messages in my inbox that I don't need. I have all these newsletters and spam. That's not a problem. That's a minor problem. That's an easily solvable problem. It's like cluttered. That's not a big problem. The issue is actually my collaboration style requires me to be in there because if I miss messages in a timely fashion, everything falls apart. And so the issue is not how do I interact with my inbox? It really has to be how do I change the way the inbox is being used. I ended up, I have had three big ideas on this that span three different books. So in deep work, one of the big ideas was you can train your personal ability to focus. Focusing is really important. Putting aside for now all the things trying to prevent you from focusing, you have to practice it. If you practice it, you'll get better at it. If you get better at it, you'll be a superstar because that's what matters in the knowledge economy. Everything good comes out of focus. Then I wrote a book after that called A World Without Email. And in that book, I was arguing the way the thing I was telling you about hyperactive hyperactive, my communication is a problem. This is a real problem. The fact that we are using this method for coordination is causing all these trouble. It's really causing problems. And I went through all the data and all the research. It made the case. This is super non-productive. I went back to the archives, the New York Times business session in the 80s and 90s to exactly document the rise of email and how people were talking about email when it first came onto the business scene. And I made the case, the way we work is arbitrary. This hyperactive hyperactive hyperactive was not a plan. It wasn't seen to be more productive. We stumbled into it. So we really should change. So that was that book. And then the most recent book, Slow Productivity from a couple of years ago, in that book, I argued, oh, wait a second, workload matters too. The other issue of this problem is we don't put any limits or transparency on how many things we're working on. And if you pile too many things on your plate, too much communication interruption becomes unavoidable because they each have little issues that need you to deal with. So I've now over this 10 year period have kind of broken down this problem. There's like training yourself to focus, fixing your communication protocols, like how do I communicate in a professional context? How do we collaborate? And then managing workload to be more reasonable. All three of, this might be why this problem's not solved. There's no one thing to fix, right? So all three of these things go into the issue and they're each complicated. Across those three books, all of which are great, everyone needs to go and check out. I think we've done an absence about each of them, so they can just go and listen to those. And then buy the books. Looking back across this portfolio of productivity advice, what have you heard from readers or what has been the stickiest strategies for you? You look back and you go, okay, that's the 80/20 of what I've published over the last three books. To me, I think the big two that give you the biggest results, and I'll tell you the one that's the hardest, and this is why this book probably sold the least. The big two that gives you the biggest results is taking focus seriously like a skill that really does make a difference. Practicing focus, you get better at it. And it has a demonstrable difference. You sit down to work and you're just producing better stuff or you're trying to pick up some complicated new thing like, oh god, I can learn this faster. That makes a huge difference. And then the second one which was more recent in my life was, oh, you really got to control the workload. So much is downstream from how many things you've agreed to work on. You have to leave the mindset of everything I say yes to, brings with it value. So saying yes to more things, it's just going to aggregate more value. That's not the right mindset. That's not the way it's a nonlinear reward function there. There's a certain point as you add more things. It not only does value stop growing, it begins to go down on the other side. And that there's a real saying no to many more things is actually a way to optimize reward and output, which is not natural. It doesn't make sense at first. It doesn't feel like common sense. So workload and focus training, you can control those more than you think and you're going to have huge results from those. A quick aside, do you remember learning about the mighty mitochondria back in grade school? Here's a quick refresher. It's the tiny engine inside of your cells that powers everything you do. But here's what they didn't teach you. As you age, you're mighty conduit break down. That's what can cause you to feel tired more often. Take longer to recover and wake up feeling like you've never fully recharged. No matter how long you sleep, I started taking timeline nearly two years ago because it is the best product on the market for mitochondrial health. And that is why I partnered with them. Timeline is the number one doctor recommended uralithin A supplement with a compound called mitapure. Basically, it helps your body clear out damaged mitochondria and replace them with new ones. Mitapure is backed by over 15 years of research, over 50 patents and nearly a dozen human clinical trials. It was recommended to me by my doctor and that is why I've used it for so long since way before I knew who even made the product. Best of all, there's a 30 day money back guarantee plus free shipping in the US and they ship internationally. So right now, you can get a free sample or get up to 20% off by going to the link in the description below or heading to timeline.com/modernwisdom. That's timeline.com/modernwisdom. The learning to say no thing is interesting, especially as people progress inside of their career and they get better at what they're doing. They have to learn to be able to say no to opportunities that they would have only begged to have had the opportunity to be in the room to have maybe said yes to only half a decade ago. In that time, you've had to go from needing that opportunity to actively being able to say no to something that's probably better than it. Alex, my friend taught me about you remember in the matrix, the woman with the red dress and Neo turns around and he says we're looking at me, we're looking at the woman in the red dress, look again and it's an agent with a gun in his face. And the analogy that Alex used was now imagine that she's not a 10 out of 10, but imagine a thousand hypothetical 1000s out of 10 and you need to be able to say no to them, which previously you didn't even know existed. So this I think the kind of, it's almost like reverse entropy or habituation, you know, your opportunities get better, which means that your capacity to say no needs to get better more quickly than that. You can't be chasing your tail trying to learn to be able to say no less quickly than the opportunities get more seductive. Yeah, it's almost perverse. The way that works. It's like when you have all the time in the world, all you want is opportunities. And then when you have opportunities, all you want is all the time of fucking pace. I had to change, I don't know what you do, but I had to change my rule at some point. This was hard for me to the default now. That's just how I have to operate now. It because as soon as you try to have a triage rule, well, look, I'm not going to do this opportunity unless I only do speaking gigs that have this much money or this or I only going to go meet with someone if they're like this, interesting or this or that, eventually the number of things that satisfy that criteria over all of it as well. It's just so I've I just had to fall back on the default. No, you're talking to somebody who came back from a two-day trip to Qatar at the start of this week. So I spent as much time traveling as I did in the country to give a tour. And as I looked around, there was this first, the first night dinner, there was maybe 300 people there. And I'm talking to Logan Paul and Stephen Bartlett's over his shoulder and the CEO of Qatar Airways is here in the Middle East and Director for Metters over there. And I was looking around thinking, everybody here wants to be here. It's very exciting. Everyone's really lovely. But also everyone here can't say no. Everybody in this room is being chronically incapable of saying no because it's no to this one several times by the way. I did Manipul in Dice to the Qatar and the UAE and other places. I have said no. All right. Well, consider me a fucking consider me a slut compared to you, Cal. Whatever, whatever it is. I must be easy and an easy booty call. They tried to get Cal and you put, we couldn't get Cal so we'll ring Chris instead. The default. No. Oh man. Yeah. It's crazy the things you end up saying no to after a while. But I mean, there's a currency shift. For me, time to think is such a valuable that's a more valuable currency than money. Right. You get to a point where like, oh, I'm doing fine. But if I don't have time to think what's the point? And then that becomes just like really rare currency that's much harder to get a hold of. And that's the only way I can protect it now is anything that requires me to like go somewhere. It's a default. No. And then I can talk myself out of it later. Right. I'm like, you know what? I could bring my family with that. We could have a trip. Right. So actually, you know what? I will do this or, you know, I just did a master class course released this week. I spent a year and a half say no to that. And then like, eventually I sort of talk myself. I talk to some people. They're like, we'll come to DC to do it. I talked to James Clear just done one and I had a good talk with him about it. And I'm like, you know what? This is, this will be interesting. And it took me a year and a half. But I finally talked myself and do it. So I will say yes, but just the default. No means that you don't have to high standards. Yeah, you'd have to run through the ringer. And then you're like, okay, if it really sticks with me, then maybe I'll be all right. I'll do it. How much should people actually be working? Well, it depends what you mean by work and what they're doing. Right. Because think about it. Let's say you're an athlete. It's super well defined. Like here's optimal training. Here's optimal rest. And like, that's what you should be doing. Like you either do that. That's really clear. We don't have those limits as clear in the culture for other types of jobs that we probably should. If you're at a high wage hourly bill job, like a law partner at a big law firm, there the economic model is the more you work, the more profitable it is. And well, can you big money to do this? But like you should basically work as much as you can that your body will take it. That's the economic engine. That's why I think those jobs are those jobs are scary. If you're a novelist, they're right. It's literary fiction. So you're like, I really need to be award-nominated for each book or I'm going to fall out of this like slipstream of because no one's going to read these books unless they're some of the best books. Then you should be doing like four hours in the morning and then just disappear. Right. Like you should be doing all very little more work than that because almost anything else will get in the way of you like sticking in that position. And so it all just depends on what you do, you know. Didn't you look at some experiment of shorter work weeks? Yeah. What did you learn from that? There's a lot of these right around the pandemic right before and then right after in Europe and Iceland. So some European studies, I think Germany did one, Iceland did one, UK did one. And they were looking at four day work weeks. So what would happen if we take away one one day? The interesting thing about those experiments is what they found is the whatever measures of productivity they came up with, they didn't get worse, which I thought was very interesting. They took a day away. And yet the perceived productivity or the measured productivity didn't go down. And there's two ways to look at it. The one way to look at it is to say, oh, this means that like we should have a four day work week because things didn't get worse. And okay, maybe, maybe, right. But to me, there's like a bigger observation that came out of that, which is like, wait, so what were we, what are we doing during the work days? Like this, there's something going on here that should really catch our attention. What does work mean that we could take an entire day off the table with no other preparation? And the valuable stuff being produced doesn't change. This tells us that like whatever we're doing while we're sitting here in work is not just sitting down and trying to produce value. We're clearly have all sorts of other sorts of distractions going on, context switching, time just being devoured, Parkinson's laws at play. Work must be broke. To me, that was the more important observation. Is it like if you can take away a day, nothing changes, then I don't think we're doing in the office, what we think we're doing in the office. Parkinson's laws on the tip of my tongue work expands to fill the time given for it. And if you give people five days, they'll take five. And if you give them four days, then they'll do it in four. And look, everybody knows just how much time they waste not doing the work, not doing the thing that they're supposed to do. And this isn't victim blaming. This is a lot of the time dealing with admin and necessary meetings. You can't get out of them. You have to be there for whatever reason. So it's not as if it's bottom up. A lot of it is top-down dictated. This is the environment that you work in and you have to do this. But even outside of that, when you do have your one hour in between meetings, your inability to not. I remember when I used to run nightclubs and I get in at two thirty in the morning, the final part of the night was caching the till. So this was before we switched to tickets, which was sort of the late teens just before COVID. Digital tickets online, which meant that you didn't have to cash as much money in the till. But before that, it was all five pounds and ten pounds note and twenty pound notes and two single pounds and all the rest of it. And I would go into the office with the manager of the venue and we would be counting the money. But this is the final task. It's the final bit of the night. It's fucking two fifteen or two thirty in the morning. We've just taken the till off as it's called anybody that's coming in doesn't get to come in. We're not going to take any more money. And I'm sad of that doing like light lift mental arithmetic. But for me, somebody who hadn't done maths since I was sixteen, it was relatively heavy lift. Flicking through the money, flicking through the money, it's light, you know, huge fluorescent overhead lights just before and then I get to drive home and I'm like thinking about it and I go to put the money in the till and I go to write it in the spreadsheet and then I get into bed. And as I go into bed, my eyes below my eyelids would start flicking left and right. I wouldn't be able to tune myself. I'm also doing this and that's not forget in a sweaty beer stink in office. Above a room going. Yeah. I've had to walk through the club. I've had to shout at the hostesses. One of them's getting fingered on the dance floor. Stop doing that. You're supposed to be at work. The DJs pissed. I need to, you know, it's chaos. And I've tried to coordinate this orchestra of Bolshev and then I've had to do mental arithmetic and then I get to drive home and then I'm like, okay, chill out, brain. It doesn't want to. And that eyes moving left and right thing, I think is the sort of optical equivalent, ocular equivalent of how people feel when they finally get a moment. It's okay. All of my stuff is done and then they try and sit down to work on the thing that ostensibly that's actually there to do, right? Because all of the other bullshit, the meetings, you're not there to do the meetings, you're not there to do the slack, you're not there to do. All of that is for play to get you to do the thing that you're there to do. And then you sit down to do the thing you there to do and your eyes are moving behind your eyelids. It's the equivalent. Swiping and moving across the screen and you've got a few different, well, just check on this thing. Like, what the living fuck is going on? I've like trained the environment that I work in has trained me out of being able to do my work. Well, we are meant to do. Like, what would be the ideal work day in an office environment that would actually mass the human brain? It would probably be you come in, you work on something hard for a while. Like, that's what you do in the morning. You have lunch and then you like, catch up with, have some meetings, talk to some people, hey, what's going on and, you know, do some task and that's your day. Like, that's basically what we can do. Like, two things. One big burst of like, let me focus on something hard and then we can kind of come down the mountain after that with, let me chat with people, what's going on, some decisions need to be made or whatever. That's probably about optimal. Instead, we juggle a dozen, the two dozen tasks that all have their own demands. They all have their own communication needs. This is why the Microsoft data shows, oh, the work happens the Saturday and Sunday morning. It is really hard. You can't go from and meetings are very hard as well. We think like, oh, I'm not actually doing work during meetings, but what you are engaging in a meeting is all the parts of your brain that deal with social interaction. And those are a large part of your brain. And that is a fraught and mental energy consuming activity to sit in a room around a zoom screen and try to manage all these different people and how do I look and what am I saying and what's going on here and I have to say the right things, it's straining and you come out of something like that. It's difficult just to jump right back into something else. And if you come out of something like that and there was a lot of obligations generated, oh, we discussed in this meeting things I need to do. And now you try to go straight from that meeting into another. Well, now that's really in the back of your head. What about this? What about this? We can't forget this. We just made our obligations. That feeling of fatigue. It's a really as fatigue is what it feels like a mental fatigue. Like there's a sand in your brain, sand in the gears of your brain. That's the state that a lot of people who were in front of a computer screen. Like that's the state they're in most of the day. And they don't even realize, oh, that's a bad feeling. That's a negative state. That's that's not how it needs to feel because do you have nothing else to compare it to? Yeah, the amount of things we're doing, the amount we're trying to switch back and forth. I always thought that part of the problem was a lot of our current thought about work culture and hustling and what it means to produce was influenced by Silicon Valley in the 90s and 2000s because that was considered this very ascendant part of the economy, you know, through the 2000s through the Steve job error. We looked at Silicon Valley. These are the coolest companies. They're doing all the coolest stuff. Over there, I think they adopted a model of work that was very inspired by computer processors, right? So because that was what was in the air in the 80s and 90s in Silicon Valley was the computer processor words, you know, the 386 or the 46 or the Pentium. And it was all about speed and the thing with a computer processor, if you're a computer type, what matters is you never want the pipeline to be empty, right? You want to always make sure you have stuff for that processor to do so it never waste time. The processor will every command you give it, it operates the same as any other. It can switch. It doesn't care what they are. It just sits there and operates one command after another. And the whole game with getting processors to be effective is like, don't have downtime with the real fear. I can put on my computer scientist hat for a second. The real fear and computer processor design is that you sometimes get to a command that's going to generate a huge delay. So you say, oh, go get something from memory. That takes a lot of time from the perspective like a computer processor cycle. It's just sitting there, cycle after cycle doing nothing while you're waiting for the memory bus or whatever. So we invented these processor pipelines like, oh, while we're waiting to get something back from memory, here's some other stuff the processor can run so that it's never not working. And the idea was you want to move as fast as possible and you never want to have downtime. And that's how you get the most out of a computer processor. The human brain is like 180 degrees different. We can't just switch back and forth between unrelated commands. You switch me from one to another thing and boom, 30 minutes of my mind is fried. Humans operate very differently, but I think Silicon Valley associated is that here's the thing we're going to associate with being really good at your job. It might have used to been, I don't know, your skill. It was Don Draper and Madman. Remember that conception of, was it mean to be good at your job? They weren't showing Don Draper grinding it out. Like, man, Don Draper is like in the office till, you know, 3 a.m. every night or whatever. Now he took the five o'clock train back to, you know, Connecticut or whatever. It was he, he was really, really good at coming up with ad copy. He was good at what he did. That's what you used to respect. And then after the 80s, 90s Silicon Valley became pervasive. Like, no, what matters is you never have a no-op. You never have a down cycle. You might as well say yes to more things. You might as well get more emails. You never have time or you're not working. That's what productivity is going to be. And that was a disaster for the human brain. If you struggle to stay asleep because your body gets too hot or too cold, this is going to help. Eight sleep just released that brand new pod five, which includes the world's first temperature regulating duvet. Compare it. Their smart mattress cover, which cools or warms each side of the bed. I have to 20 degrees and you've got a climate controlled cocoon built for deep uninterrupted rest. The new base even comes with a built-in speaker so you can fall asleep to white noise, nature sounds or little ambient Taylor Swift. That's your thing. And it's got upgraded biometric sensors that quietly run health checks every night, spotting patterns like abnormal heartbeats, disrupted breathing or sudden changes in HRV, which is why it has been clinically proven to increase total sleep by up to one hour every night. Best of all, we've got a 30 day sleep trial so you can buy it and sleep on it for 29 nights. And if you don't like it, they will give you our money back. Plus, they ship internationally. Right now, you can get up to $350 off the pod five by going to the link in the description below, heading to 8sleep.com/modernwisdom using the code modernwisdom. A checkout. That's e-i-g-t-sleep.com/modernwisdom. A modernwisdom. A checkout. There's definitely an element of this that it's very public productivity. It's very obvious. Look at how hard I'm working. Right? If you're the one that replies quickest on Slack or on email, then it's evident that it looks like you're the one that's working hardest because you're the one that's most responsive. Whereas the person who's silently working on their own, they can't broadcast it by design. They can't broadcast it to everybody else. So, yeah, this is a very obvious productivity in a way. It's way less sexy. So, I think the new elephant in the room is AI and how that is enabling an increase in pace of output, but almost certainly a decrease in quality. So, folds AI into your existing world view. Because to me, it just seems like a huge force multiplier for what already was pretty sloppy. Slack, email, async communication that's always on, people taking their work home with them, never being able to not contact switch, not focusing on quality and instead focusing on quantity, not being able to dial themselves into deep work for one moment. And now that is enhanced and magnified even more by the use of LLMs to help you put out more, to help you think less. So, your focus is actually, you're in Slack with your LLM. It wouldn't surprise me if there is a LLM integration into Slack at some point in future. I don't know whether there is where you can just do it in there. So, you're just talking back and forth in one fucking works, but talk to me, fold AI into this, you must have a million thoughts. There's a lot going on with AI. I mean, I think in its current instantiation, so we think that like an office worker for the most part, put programmers aside, I'll get back to them, but non programmers are really interacting with chatbots. Like, that's the main way they're integrating right now with AI. It's exaggerating exactly what you said. For a lot of people, it's exaggerating the problems that already exist. Now, there's a term for this that comes out of a Harvard Business Review article from last year. They call it WorkSlop. Let's say put together as one word. And they have some pretty compelling data on it. So, what's WorkSlop defined WorkSlop for me? So, WorkSlop is AI-generated work products in the knowledge work sector. So, like, emails reports and PowerPoints or what have you that are generated quickly by AI, but they're so low quality that they actually, it's very difficult to, they make everyone else's jobs harder. This seems to be, this is like the defining aspect of WorkSlop. It's quick to produce, but it's so low value that it actually no real progress is made. So, like, you get a WorkSlop email from, you know, your boss or whatever. And like, this isn't useful to me. It's this weird, wordy thing that's broken up into sections and it doesn't get to the core of the problem we have to solve. So, you made that email quick, but in the bigger schema things, we made very little progress towards what we want to do. Or you put together a WorkSlop PowerPoint presentation so that you would have something at the meeting, but now we're spending 20 minutes looking at this nonsense and nothing is not helping us. It's not helping us actually do things. So, this is what's happening, or at least my fear. And the reality is most people aren't using these tools in the office. Let's just set the reality, right? So, but for the people who are using them right now, which is a healthy percentage, but it's not. Do you know what the numbers are? Well, it's difficult because there's a lot of fudging of the numbers here. There's a lot of mistaken have used or experimented with with our regularly using them. So, I see this mistake happen a lot. And so, it's difficult to get good numbers. There was like famously, maybe it was an Ethan Mollick article where he was talking about in my world, like academia, the homework apocalypse. And he's like, look at this study. Students just don't do work anymore. Nine out of 10 are just using chapots now. But you look at that study and what it actually said was nine out of 10 had tried using a chapot at least once. And if you looked at who's using them regularly, it was like two out of 10, right? Because like for most of the students, it wasn't helping them the way they thought it would. So, I don't know what the numbers are. If you account like advanced Google use, I think it's larger. Like yeah, I searched for information on this instead of going to Google. That's larger. But in terms of people who are actually making office work product out of it, I think it's smaller than the people who follow AI commentary or talk about it on AI, Twitter, AI YouTube. I think it's a lot smaller than they probably assume just because in their world is pervasive. But the people who are using it, this is the problem. They're trying to avoid. This is my theory on this is like, what how is AI helping like an office worker now? Well, their brain is exhausted from all this context switching. So, what problem are they looking to solve? They're looking to avoid having to do hard moments of cognition because their brain is so fried. It's really difficult to like solve the blank page problem. Oh, God. I got to send this email. It's a blank screen. I got to start writing from scratch. That's really hard. And the inertia that they've been trained out of overcoming because of the prime, it's almost like a one to punch. Humans were primed to not like heavy cognitive load. Then our ability to deal with it and get through that initial resistance was decreased through the context switching. And now, don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. Carbon-based life forms. The silicon-based life forms are coming. And let's throw in one other aspect in there. Also, outside of work, we had these distraction machines in our hand that were further degrading our comfort with concentration because any possible moment of introspection we would have had even outside of work. Why would I do that when TikTok has like the perfect dash cam video of a Karen getting punched or something? I got to watch that. We have that revolution comes along. Plus the email revolution. We completely afterfearability to think. And we exhaust our brain. So the other aspect of it as we talked about, it's really exhausting to go through your day context switching. So I don't have any reserves left to write this PowerPoint. That seems impossible. And then AI is like, "Hey, hey, hey, hey, I can do it for you. It'll be fine. It'll be fine. It'll be good enough. It'll be good enough." Like, "Oh, okay, I can smooth over. I use this analogy in a New Yorker piece last year. It's like it takes your effort graph, looks like spikes, like an EKG or something like that. And AI smooths over those peaks. And so you don't have to your peak concentration required can come down. Like, when you can fill the blank page. And then maybe I have to work with it a little bit. That's easier than doing it from scratch. But the stuff being produced is no good. And so I feel like work slop. It's almost less of a, it's less of a critique of AI than it is AI making obvious a problem with the way we were already working. I think that's what's going on there. I think this has even happened with computer programmers. This is considered, you know, heretical right now. I guess I'm used to being yelled at. People are really excited by this workflow where I have seven or eight cloud code agents going concurrently, producing code and testing them. And I'm just a manager of all these different processes. And they're all producing this code on my behalf. And it feels really cool and interesting like this has to be the future. I don't know that that is. I mean, I don't know the context. The problem is outside of like demos or internal tools or just having fun. That's not really code you can trust very well. And it does, though, completely lower the peaks of being a computer programmer. Those peaks of cognition is much, much easier to manage a bunch of cloud code processes than it is to come up with an algorithm. And you have that same blank page. So I'm, I think the jury is still out on even where we're going to end up in the AI impact on programming. I don't know where it's going to end up. But the way it's being talked about in the last few months after the latest cloud code update, which is sort of, I guess that's something humans don't do anymore. I don't think we're there ready to say that yet. I get popped with cloud code ads. I get I you give me a terminal. I have no idea what to do. I'm like, I'm like, you know, someone's grandmother trying to use an iPad. I have no idea what's going on. So they are pushing very, very hard. But the most of this, it's it's it's funny. That's a little bit crazy. That's my world right? I'm computer scientist is that for engineer computer scientist types, they forget how technically advanced they are. So yeah, cloud code works in the terminal, right? And that's why it works so well. It exists in a world of text only text command line commands like the old dust command line. It's all text commands, which you can do a lot with. You can create an edit and compile computer program. So it's very good at that. And it's a limited set of textual commands. That's perfect for a language model. And the engineers are like, Oh, we can use this terminal based tool to do all sorts of other stuff that's not computer programming. Great. This is the pro this is solved. The everyone's going to be doing this. Everyone is going to have these sort of personal assistance based on something on cloud code. I'm like, man, do you realize how foreign a command line interfaces to people? You realize like how weird and nerdy and complicated your world is? You're like, yeah, this will be great. My grandma will just on the command line understand that like the cloud code agent can bring up a bass script is just going to cat those files over to the the reg X graph. You know, it'll be fine. They don't know when knows how to do any of that type of stuff. So sort of funny scene, the engineers building these incredibly intricate nerdy wonderful tools. They've custom built for cloud code to help them in their life. And they think the gap between that and everyone else having AI, automated things in their life is like, Oh, it's this real small thing. I'm like, Oh, man, I don't think you understand. I mean, people are still not quite sure about the right click. I think you still have a ways to go before there. I saw this this tweet from Robert Friend Law lawyer uses chat GPT to help write a brief chat GPT hallucinates cases and quotations caught sanctions lawyer and four co counsel for not catching the errors. The lawyer who used chat GPT has practiced for over 30 years. He prompted prompted chat GPT right in order that denies the motion to strike with case law support. Tell the court that he doesn't normally use chat GPT and used it this time because he was caring for his dying family members said no of his co counsel were aware of this use of generative AI. Cause says that because all five attorneys signed both documents that included these errors and they admit that not one of them verified that the case law in those briefs actually exist. Their conduct violates rule 11 B2. There's hundreds of those happening. Right. I heard I don't know where this site is. There's a site that tracks this. Lawyers getting busted for chat GPT written briefs that just make things because it will for sure make up things if you ask it because again what it tries to do is you know not to get people know this but right at the very bottom what is a language model trying to do is trying to solve the word guessing game. That's how it was trained. It was given real text you knock out a word and say replace that word. Can you figure out what word was really there in the real text. So the language models just think they're trying to expand a real text that really existed. So they're trying to produce text that makes sense given the prop. They're not there's not world models are structured reasoning in there of like okay this is a legal brief and we have a notion of a citation. We don't know how it thinks about that. There's hundreds and hundreds of cases of this happening. I heard Scott Galloway talk about this on the pivot podcast that he track there's some site that tracks this that he keeps an eye on and he says it astounds you. You think it's a handful of people. It's not. It's all the time. Here's my story of getting burned by that. I sort of learned my lesson. I was working on because the one way I'll use chat GPT is just sometimes instead of Google. Especially if I want instructions for whatever change settings on something great. It has a lot of really useful. Spectacular for all of that stuff. If you want to use it as basically glorified Wikipedia that's more instructive like yeah. Yeah. You can ask questions of yeah. So I was using I was writing an essay and it was on Isaac Asimov's Rules Robotics. This was a New Yorker essay. And I left my copy of I robot. I was here at my studio and I left it at home. I was like oh I needed to add this quote right. I left it and I was like oh you know what that that story is in the public domain. It's all over the internet and this seems like it would be perfect for chat GPT like hey can you scrap a copy and find me that quote and they'll save me a little bit of time. Like yeah here it is. Here's the quote. It was like yeah, it's best roughly I remember I put it in there. And then the fact checker was like where's this quote from. I was like yeah it's from the story or whatever. I get the book. And it just hallucinated a quote that was more or less like what was said right because again it's kind of plain to game of this is the type of text it would make sense giving the prompt but it wasn't the actual quote. It had full access to it right. You can search this it's in the public domain so that the actual story is everywhere. So I had just naively assumed if you ask it for some information that exists on the internet that oh it'll just go find it and format it for you I didn't it. And then I went to a whole dialogue with it where I was like this is not the right quote and it's like yeah you're right. You know what I thought you meant paraphrase a quote here it is made up. Now like that's not the real quote. Can you go get the real quote and give it me at this point I was just experimenting. I'd already filled it in the article and you're like you're right. Yeah you know I was being hasty here you go I could not get it to give me the real quote. So anyway I would I learned my lesson I was like oh don't assume even if it's common information that it has access to. The desire the desire to fucking reprimand an l lm and I've shouted at them. I've capital letter exclamation marks. It's like what what are you doing? What do you do? What are you hoping to achieve by throwing your emotional distress at this fucking disembodied voice on the other side? Okay we bits of sight I fucking love chat you if you think it's been really really fantastic for tons of things. It what's important is learning the limits and not using it for case law. This episode is brought to you by Woop. I have been wearing Woop for over five years now way before they were a partner on the show I've actually tracked over 1600 days of my life with it according to the app which is insane and it's the only wearable I've ever stuck with because it tracks everything that matters sleep workouts recovery breathing heart rate even your steps and the new 5.0 is the best version you get all the benefits that make Woop indispensable 7 cents smaller but now it's also got a 14 day battery life and has health span to track your habits how they affect your pace of aging it's got a whole monolinsights for ladies I'm a huge huge fan of whoops that's why it's the only wearable that I've ever stuck with and best of all you can join for free pay nothing for the brand new Woop 5.0 strap plus you get your first month for free and there's a 30 day money back guarantee so you can buy it for free try it for free if you do not like it after 29 days they just give you your money back right now you can get the brand new Woop 5.0 and that 30 day trial by going to the link in the description below or heading to join dot Woop dot com slash modern wisdom that's join dot Woop dot com slash modern wisdom what opportunities do you think an increasing reliance on AI opens up because I get the sense that as more people use LLMs to do work for them this will create advantages in some areas for people who don't need to be reliant so if you thought about the the holes market openings that will occur it will I mean the way I think about LLM base AI versus more advanced AI that we don't know how to do yet is you know my theory is the what is being affected is going to be more narrow at first it's going to be places where there's an exact match between what generative AI existing tools can do and existing my market sectors we saw this actually the week we're recording this we actually saw this reflected in the stock market there was this interesting paradox that was going on this week where the stock price of software companies that deal with stuff that is well suited for an LLM went down there was there was they call it the the SAS apocalypse right the software service apocalypse so you know companies to do like legal advice companies that do graphic design like Figma and Adobe because a lot of you know we have gender of image generation is making building images from scratch is less useful customer service so companies to do a lot of customer service type software we saw the stock was sliding on these very specific software industries because like look I think LLM is arguing me to do this it was triggered by anthropic release in some plugins that made it easier to integrate LLM into your services without having to hire these other companies but you would think that's would be good news for the big tech companies building the AI that's going to replace all this their stock was sliding as well so the big tech companies had this big slide that at the end of the week we're recording this there's a rebound at the end but it was like a trillion dollars in market cap disappeared from the the big tech companies at the same time so what does that mean the market was betting on what are investors betting on at that point what was going to happen and they were betting that in the near future the next year or two what we're going to see is selective impacts and specific fields from gender of AI but also that too much money is being invested in these AI companies as it already which means they're betting that they're not about to automate most of the economy they're not about to you know just one more iteration away from a huge economic disruption they're not they're not at this peak of like complete transformation because if they were you would be trying to increase your holdings in these companies like I don't care how much money they're investing these companies are going to be worth an astronomical amount of money but the market is betting I think the impact is going to be more limited in the one to two-year window than a lot of the commentary was seen so I think that's important because talk is cheap but tech stocks aren't and so people the way they spend their money actually often has more of I think there's a lot of information in that versus just I've been reading these articles online and I got the vibe really seems to be saying this is a big deal so that's I kind of agree with the markets consensus right now for sure there's going to be industries that are affected but it's not going to be one of these situations where you say okay any work that's not just the deepest creative work is all going to be automated the next few years I better go learn how to like do art or something like that I don't think it's going to be that broad at first I don't think the current generation of AI technology can support as broad of impacts as people think there's a lot of extrapolation from well if we can do this with code certainly could do this with all these other jobs if you could do this with this industry well certainly next it'll do it for all these other industries we have to be wary of those extrapolations right you I think I read an article from you what if AI doesn't get much better than this yeah sort of if we have I don't know some sort of flin-effect thing that kicks in but for AI why you know because I think a lot of people would agree chat GPT 2 to 3 fucking hell to 440 I know is this there's a whole fewer on the internet about people that have got girlfriends or boyfriend's a virtual on 4 oh and they're all getting upset and sad about it and I don't understand I don't think I use the tools sufficiently deeply to be able to test this in benchmark it's like my fire TV sticks remote isn't working well um like I it was able to do that fucking five years ago um but is your your thinking is that what maybe gonna reach asymptote for what llm's generally and transform a technology is able to do and then it's gonna be a new architecture entirely if we're going to actually get beyond this yes yeah that's what that article is about I think that was a very of the articles I've written I think that was a really important one that came out in august and the story it tells and a lot of other people told the story as well or you know around that time and since but the story it tells is basically what happened is there is this big paper that was published in 2020 the lead researcher Kaplan Jared Kaplan I think was at Anthropic at the time and it was this paper where they said hey something weird has happened here if we make llm's bigger and we train them longer they perform better and technically they're seem to loss decreased that sounds kind of obvious but in like machine learning circles that was surprising because there's this idea of overfitting where if you just make your model bigger the performance goes down so it used to be like you have to find the perfect size model for your problem space that's the way people thought about machine learning until this paper came out and like I don't know transform based llm's they were using gpt2 and they were systematically making it bigger and they were seeing that the performance just kept going up and like this is interesting so let's try it and that was gpt3 all right let's actually make this like 10x bigger surely this can't be right and it was it matched to Kaplan curve exactly like oh my god this actually got way better just by making this bigger like all right well certainly that must be the end of it let's try it with gpt4 they made it bigger they trained it much longer months and months they trained it you know Microsoft had to build these custom data centers to train it with new ac technology didn't exist before and it fit the curve it was like way better and the thing gpt4 did that really got so gpt4 set off the whole industry the thing it did is it started showing abilities beyond just language and that's where people got excited like oh wow if you train a language model on enough language it learns about things that isn't just producing language it can play games it can do math problems it can do logic I mean this was super exciting it was super exciting so the assumption was do this two or three more times you have agi so that's what the whole industry was based off of when we went from three to four was this was legitimate justified excitement expand the size and the training duration two or three more times and the economy is going to happen in the box I mean it was so ex that's where all of that was the the engine for all this excitement so they tried at open a i was called project Orion they made it bigger modeled in four they trained it even longer like here we go and they tried it and they said it's not much better and this was this big brick wall surprise for the industry like wait it didn't get better everyone else tried as well right groc they tried this with groc as well the colossus data center we're like we're going to have 200,000 gpu data center no one's ever built anything this big and it was like a little bit better meta tried this they had a model called bmeth like we built the biggest data is bigger than anyone we've had before they didn't release it because it was marginally better than the last model that they had and so this was a huge issue right you couldn't just make the models bigger and train them bigger so what they did was they switched to what are other ways we can get a performance increases and can we get more narrow by what we mean with performance and this is when we begin to get all the alphabet suit models well it's gpt o o3-mini/whatever and they switched to focus from just this is amazing if you use it to we have these benchmark graphs and look at these graphs things are going better on these benchmarks all became about benchmarks because these are very narrow things you could train models to do well on they weren't intuitive gpt4 was just awesome by the time we got the gpt5 their whole launch their launch page of 28 graphs of a benchmark names that no one knew what they were and so then they had to look for all these other ways to get improvement and that's we got like inference time compute well what if we we compute longer for harder questions and they begin really pushing fine tuning well for specific types of problems we can get data sets that have answers and questions and answers and we can use reinforcement learning they try to take this pre-trained model and make it better at this particular type of problem and then we can have a benchmark that shows us we got better at this problem and my argument in that article is like this is a way different game than we were playing when we went from two to three and three to four we're no longer scaling to a g i we're taking basically gpt4 and we're doing all of this like tuning and adding extra stuff on top of it and around it and and measuring these very narrow benchmarks and that's why people have this feeling ever since like I I guess they're better but it's not in an obvious way it's better in specific tasks or if I vibe code this it looks better I guess and it seems more narrow and so yeah we're reaching in that is a long answer to short question but we are reaching an asymptote on just pure fine tuned LLIMs as an engine for AI we're going to need more architectures is going to take more time well presumably chat gpt6 could come out and oh fuck they just blew through the entirety of my prediction this curve no longer curves flat in the way that I thought and shit this is this is a different universe now yeah but that won't happen because they they tried and it they don't know how to do that so it's not going to be just an LLIM I mean my prediction of the future of AI is I think what we're going to see I think LLIMs are very powerful but what we're going to see is much more of hybrid models that are custom custom fit to particular problems where okay this system does this thing better than a human and in its guts there's like an LLIM in there not a huge frontier model but one that's like souped up and optimized for this particular type of thing but there's also like five or six other models and there's an explicit world model there's a future predictor there's a policy network trained to reinforcement learning to try to evaluate situations to see what's good or bad there's a whole logic engine on top of this to hooks these together these are what I think the the AI systems of the future going to be like they're going to be bespoke and there's going to be a ton of them so when we get the aji it's not going to be gpt7 can do everything you ask it as well as a human it's going to be a world in which there's 10,000 different AI products and you realize everything I can think of now there's some product out there somewhere that can do this better than humans just like there's AI that can play chess better than humans there's a different AI that can play go better than humans there's an AI now that can be professional poker players a Texas hold of no limit they're all different systems with their own pieces in them and a lot of them have some language models in them as well but a lot of other pieces as well it's distributed aji that's what it's going to be like we're just going to wake up one day and say there's fewer and fewer things where we say humans can do this better than computers and it's a different model than how 9000 there's one giant it's a really inefficient way to imagine solving this problem if we just have a big enough language model it's going to do all activity it's going to power all agents it's going to automate all systems that really doesn't make sense I think it's going to be a much more distributed path towards aji and ai. Given what ai can and can't do and what the quality of work is that it puts out at the moment what is some good advice for somebody who wants to work against the weaknesses that are going to be exposed in other people because of their reliance on ai by avoiding it themselves or by using it appropriately what would you focus on? Because again it seems to me like quantity is easier to achieve than ever before quality is going to be rarer that inertia getting the project off the launch pad the blinking cursor of the blank page where should people focus their time and their attention in order to capitalize this? I think you need to begin thinking about the feeling of cognitive strain the way that you know a weightlifter thinks about the burn of a muscle or a runner thinks about burning lungs as a thing that is uncomfortable in the moment but man I'm excited about this feeling because it's I'm getting stronger. You got to make yourself really comfortable thinking hard that is the differentiating factor I mean obviously I've been saying this since 10 years now but that's that's even more now going to be the differentiating factor right and if you talk to athletes they're like this is like shorts and eager and pumping iron talking about pump and that's really painful what he's doing actually right like lifting the the level of weights that the physical pain he's in is high and he compares it to an orgasm right because if you're a weightlifter you're like oh that pain is directly translating the more strength and more muscle mass you gotta think that same way about your brain you cannot flee cognitive strain you have to think about it in a knowledge work cognitive age that is the feeling of my brain getting more capable yeah I want to seek that out let's go get it let's go get some right like I want to this I'm not bring my focus back to this thing I'm going to try to push this through and then when you're done be like oh man I exhausted my brain that's awesome that was like that was like a really good cognitive workout so don't well everyone else is using AI to run away from strain you should be the person running for it because especially in the American context I mean the knowledge economy is now a massive portion of our GDP and the knowledge economy itself is shifting more towards cognition intensive work so you know knowledge work and capture anything where you're not building things but now all the lower level knowledge work is being outsourced or automated a lot of it has been replaced over the last 30 years by software we don't have support staff and assistance and secretaries like we used to because well you can use Microsoft Word and email we don't need separated people and so the the work that's left in our economy the knowledge economy has been getting more and more cognitively demand and so the number one skill is I'm used to straining my brain learning hard new things and maintaining focus that's what I would train that's so good I really really agree and it's the funny thing is that's why I asked at the top if you just felt like fucking Cassandra because each subsequent development in technology makes this more important yeah I do there's always going to be that seductive whisper in the back of someone's mind that well yeah but I can work faster with AI I can work quicker by what if my boss sees me doing executive functioning through Slack more whatever what is the what's the elevator pitch for you should do work of high quality and that will end up winning you have to think about employment ultimately it's a marketplace there's a lot of offuscation and fog and smoke but it's ultimately a marketplace right you're paid money in exchange you produce things that have economic value that's what makes that exchange makes sense there is not ultimately an underlying economic value to the coordination activities by themselves there is no actual economic value to the speed of your slack responses or the number of meetings you go into or the number of like bullet pointed emails with those sort of chat GPT emojis that you put out that itself doesn't generate economic value the stuff that does a knowledge work almost always requires you mastering hard skills and applying them through concentration and ultimately that shakes out there's there's only so far you can get or so far you can hide being busy because busyness can't be monetized and you know of course you can create a smoke for a while like I don't know like you know Chris seems like productive I guess like he's always on these emails and this and this and that but if you're not actually producing things that have economic value like ultimately that catches up to your opportunities narrow you're going to get found out at some point where if you do the other thing it's like no I'm creating stuff that is rare and valuable it's unambiguously has value in the marketplace you write your own ticket like what you want to have a business where you work half the year you can do it you want to get paid a huge amount of money you can do it you want to like work for a company but you all you choose when you come into the office and you declare like I don't want to do meetings that's actually a thing by the way I talked to a marketing team at one of the major tech companies not long ago and they said you know what we're in the sales side and like our group the sales group we are exempt from meetings because they can directly monetize oh you brought in this many dollars we can see it and if you're bringing in dollars they're like you can do what you want and they could also see if we make you go to meetings those dollars go down it's like forget the meetings for you everyone else where there's not a clear number where they can see how much value bringing like all you better be there in the meetings I do I've always thought this the the big problem that most people have that doesn't exist in the world of sports stars if you're a sports star everything that you're doing is to facilitate performance and performance is very tightly bounded and it's quantifiable if you're a weightlifter that 300 kilos is 300 kilos you either pick it up or you don't pick it up and your sleep and your recovery and your nutrition and your hydration and your game tape and your technique work and your S&C and your body work and massage and soft tissue and all of that stuff combine to this output to very very sort of single-ordinating principle the same thing goes for tennis and the same thing goes for football and the same thing goes for baseball and so on and so forth you do not perform well you begin to scrutinize all of the contributing elements that come toward that the problem that you have in most normal people's lives is the output that they're optimizing for is diffuse and very hard to work out why I want to be a good father but I also want to perform at work you know and I do Brazilian Jiu Jitsu on an evening time and my wife makes me go dancing and I want to be engaging at a cocktail party okay well first off that's lots of things it's not a single-ordinating principle and secondly define to me the lineage between your disrupted sleep last night and your poor performance around the dinner table or in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu or whatever the diffuse thing contributes because you inevitably have to make trade-offs from one thing in order to do another but also it's just hard it's hard to work out how your performance is performing and this is the same in the work life the perfect example the salespeople we just know if we do make you do this thing we lose that thing and that thing is more important than this thing it would be like if for some reason sports stars were being encouraged to stay up late you go well we know if we make you stay up late answering fucking slacks your performance in the game the next day decreases but for most people there's this implicit assumption that part of what you do is the contribution to the strategy and the operations and the executive function culture and so on which means that you forget what you're there for I think people have forgotten what they're there for what what what am I supposed to be here at work doing what is my out my outcome goal there's so much fat in the American knowledge work sector right now right because it we're so wealthy and there's so much money being slung around that we can have whole organizations where most people don't even know how they're directly connected to producing that value and they could just be doing email all day or whatever right it's so inefficient but there are I mean there are plenty of knowledge work areas where people don't put up with a bunch of this nonsense and it's all areas where it's very easy to quantify your production I did this essay a couple years ago where I did a reflection where I said God almost every thought I've had in my books all came out of my experience as a grad student at MIT so I was at the theory of computation group in the computer science department at MIT don't call it department but the theory of computation group in the CIS lab at MIT which is like a group the professors there the students we weren't like this but the professors were super geniuses like literally turning a war turning award MacArthur MacArthur turning award dykes-tra-prize like smartest people in the world and it was incredibly clear if you're successful or not what major theorems did you prove in the last few years that's it that's all that matter right and that required a lot of thinking so they were terrible with email they had no interest in social media meetings like if you're trying to throw meetings at them they would just ignore you right I wrote about this in deep work even and people pushed back but I was like this is what it's like in that world if you send someone an email in this world like one of these professors and you're like uh this isn't this is ambiguous you kind of didn't word this well or I don't really want to do this they just ignore it like that's on you buddy like I have to get you know I'm being I will lose my job if I'm pre-tenure if I don't come up and solve theorems and they put up with no nonsense and a lot of that actually infuse the my the book deep work is like you know what I came of age in an environment where all anyone cared about was focused and everything else was second-terred like athletes just like you said if this is getting in the way of my launch angle going down or my bad and average adjusting I'm going to I'm going to change it but it's crazy right now in knowledge work how many positions that's not true but what I advise people then get in a position where that's true change your your profile at work or if you're changing your job change your job into one where your value production is unambiguous now this is a double ed sword is it swings both sides you can't hide anymore but if you get into one of those situations and then you do the cognitive work I know how to focus I build the skills I apply the skills I'm not afraid of cognitive strain you're in the absolute best position in our economy right you can write your own ticket but you have to be willing to go into a a circumstance so like this is the only world I know and academia is what did you publish that's all that matters it's all we care about what you publish book writing how many copies of your last book sale that's all that matters there's no you know what though he answered our publisher emails so quickly so let's give them another deal folks now it's exactly how many dollars did you make us last time that's what we care about you know for the next time so it's a scary world for you're being held accountable but it's an equation I always say is that if you're accountable you don't have to be accessible if you're like I can point to this is the value I produced and I'm killing it for you then I don't answer emails I don't go to these meetings I don't do 50 sort of things you can get away with almost anything you want so I think that's more people should make that move especially in the A.I.A.s I suppose more people should make that move towards like hey hold me accountable and then do the work to actually show up it makes your life so it's such a better way to go through knowledge work you get away from that hyperactive hive mind brain melting distracting soul crushing slack all day long nonsense in other news you've probably heard me talk about element before and that's because I am frankly dependent on it and it's how I've started my day every single morning this is the best tasting hydration drink on the market you might think why do I need to be more hydrated because proper hydration is not just about drinking enough water it's having sufficient electrolytes to allow your body to use those fluids each grabbing and go stick pack is a science-backed electrolyte ratio of sodium potassium and magnesium it's got no sugar coloring artificial ingredients or any other junk this plays a critical role in reducing muscle cramps and fatigue while optimizing brain health regulating your appetite and curbing cravings this orange flavor in a coal glass of water is a sweet salty orangey nectar and you will genuinely feel a difference when you take it versus when you don't which is why you keep going on about it best of all there's no questions ask refund policy with an unlimited duration buy it use it all and if you don't like it for any reason they give you your money back and you don't even have to return the box that's how confident they are that you love it plus they offer free shipping in the US right now you can get a free sample pack of elements most popular flavors with your first purchase by going to the link in the description below adding to drink lmnt.com/modernwistam that's drinklmnt.com/modernwistam let's say that you're in an organization that was small enough that you could actually enact some change maybe you're at the top of it near the top of it or you're just you're toward the bottom of it but you feel like you've got the ear of the person that's in charge if you were to say we've got the classic diffuse hive mind pseudo productivity malaise like the the the ambience soup that everybody's swimming in how would you what would you do what would you how would you rework the internals of an organization that still needs to communicate obviously there has to be coordination people on working in silos there is going to be inevitable communication and coordination that needs to happen how how do you survive the modern world what what would you propose how would you restructure things yeah I mean I would do a few things one I would say we're going to have explicit workload tracking and management right no more just people throw stuff at you and you implicitly just add it to your plate we want to place where we write down what everyone's working on and we can see it and now we can start talking about things like what is an ideal wip what's an ideal work in progress limit for an individual how many things do we want someone working out the same time before that curve starts to go the other way so what you have to do once you start doing that is saying we need a place to track things that need to be done that no one is actively working on right now and we can feel okay about it so I would definitely want to set up where we're things enter into our radar of this needs to be done there's a place for that to go and to be stored where it's no one it's like an organizational getting things done in box yes and it's not on anyone's plate because here as soon as you are responsible for something it generates email slack and meetings so once it's on your plate it begins to spin off administrative overhead and slow productivity overhead tax that gets spun off as soon as it's on your plate so everything by default goes to a team plate no one's working on it then we keep track of from that plate as we move things to people's individual responsibilities we have like I don't you should do three things at a time that's it and when you finish something you can pull something else in so do a small number of things fast and well and then keep bringing things so I would definitely do that the second thing I would do is I would say no more hyperactive hive mine if you send a message that requires more than a single message in response that should not happen over digital communication if I can't just answer your question with one more message then that has to be real time now we can't have that turn into an explosion and meetings so what we're going to do is we're going to have daily office hours for everyone so there'll be a daily time where everyone knows they can call your walk to your office or whatever and go through a bunch of things with you real quick instead of sending emails we're going to have morning stand-up meetings within the teams for sure who's working on what this morning who needs what from who to get that done go do the work we're going to have so we'll definitely do this as well we might throw in phone hours it's a new idea I'm thinking about where you say look there's a longer period of time like maybe all afternoon where you can always call me if there's something that's so urgent you can't wait till the next office hours there's enough friction and phone calls that that actually turns out to work pretty well like I'm not just going to call you because I want to get something out my plate I won't call you unless it really is serious so I would do that as well and then I would say okay what ongoing work does this not work for what type of projects do we work on on a regular basis where this isn't working because it's too long to have to wait till the afternoons are problem and say great let's identify those and for each of those let's build a protocol here is our protocol for collaboration on this type of work and however that's going to work but it's like the information goes into this spreadsheet and then whatever someone checks it in the morning they move things to shared files I don't know what it is but whatever it is it prevents us to have ad hoc unscheduled messaging isn't necessary so explicit workload management I would have this rule of no hyperactive hive mind I would have protocols for any type of recurring collaboration we could be explicit about how we actually want to do this and then I would have a culture of talking about deep work and concentration like a tier one skill how's it going how many deep work hours did you get in this week are you happy about that what was getting the way of that did you have a particularly good session tell everyone else about it like what worked oh I see you you you did music you have a different look oh what's all think you know hey here's a good idea that we can borrow make deep work culturally something you talk about as like this is a tier one skill that we're really proud about you do those things you're like a 2x your profitability this is the thing that's always frustrating me about these ideas is like you could make more money if you do it but that's it's really hard those changes I just talked about it's hard there's friction there's personalities and this is the thing I really underestimated when I wrote those books the way we work now is like a low energy point right it's like the easiest possible configuration of work so if you feel friction you're trying to do something more structured you're trying to do something that makes better use of our brain and you're getting resistance the place you're going to fall when you give up is the way we're doing it now so it's not arbitrary I've realized this hyperactive hive mind let's just figure things out on the flow no workload management it's not arbitrary it's the low energy it's like this local minimum it's the place that like minimizes the complexity that still allows a company to run and I think that's why we keep falling back it mathematical terms is a suboptimal Nash equilibrium it's not the optimal way to work together but no one person can leave it and make their situation better it's a low energy state it's a it's an attractor it's a local minimum in the utility landscape whatever mathematical metaphor you want to use and so it's it's not arbitrary I was like oh it's like a law of work physics this thing is like a neutron star in the world the universe of work that just attracts everything back to it and it takes a huge amount of energy to escape its pull that's why I think we've had so much trouble solving this problem even though you would make more money if you did it I wonder I'm thinking about sort of immediately implementable solutions for this I get the sense that you could probably tell people we don't use slack before 1pm like nobody is to post in slack before 1pm because that you can ring if it's SOS emergency scenario you can just call somebody we just don't use it and then it means that everybody knows that they should not be doing it's a company wide deep what I mean look are there going to be some departments HR for instance probably would be you but your job is your your job is HR up you're in the PR department or something like that your your job is actually about comms but if you're in marketing or if you're in accounting something like that okay sit down and do your fucking work and up until a point would you make of intermittent fasting for communication company wide yeah it works especially though what really makes that more sustainable is if you have that quick morning standup on the team scale at the beginning of the day where everyone says here's what I'm going to be working on during these morning hours here's what I need from each other to make progress on this so you you what would have unfolded over slack and email you're doing in 10 minutes so you say okay here's what I'm working on this morning I'm working on the the new white paper here's what I need though I need those figures from you can you get when can you get them to buy 9 30 all right you're going to get them to buy 9 30 and I need those quotes you promise can you get just do that right away okay oh so I you all know what I need from you okay now I'm gonna put my head down right that report so having that that meeting ahead of time where everyone says what they need and what they're going to do that makes that time work better and then the thing that really works do the same thing on the other end of the morning all right you said you were going to work on this this and this what happened so there's accountability on the other end you can't run away from you know if you just went on email and social media they're like well wait a second I thought you're gonna write the white thing yeah and if other people flake they don't send you the figures they don't send you the quotes you're like I got stuck man I never got this how how didn't how didn't do what he said he said and they're there in the same room and they're like oh okay I get it I get it I I can't just ignore stuff right like I actually have to do it I think that's a great idea I think something like that works well if you put that accountability before it and you put it after it that scares people by the way though that that really does scare people because you actually have to do the work and this is the thing what really social media and smartphones killed this way worse AI is gonna make this worse but that was a big inflection point in terms of losing our comfort with concentration that got really bad once we got algorithmically optimized content we really got used to that and so it's scary if you just go to a company and say here's the new plan boss we're gonna have a meeting in the morning you got to tell me what you're gonna do for the next five hours and then you got to do it we're gonna check in after five hours and see how it went that's a nightmare for a lot of people that is like oh god I don't know what I'm gonna do I agree I get the sense that a nice way to introduce this would be look everybody's brain here has been turned into slop everyone no one is able to do their job as effectively as they should so you are expected to do the work but the reason that we do the pre and post is not to whip somebody into performance review it's to give you accountability because you don't look like a tit in front of your co-workers but if you don't get to the point we're gonna the same as when you start training from marathon you don't run 10k on the first day you will titrate the dose up and over time you know week one will permit some fuckery and week two will permit less fuckery and week three we're all in it together and this person's pulling ahead they're really like a hyper responder you know they're making loads of gains in the focus gym and other people are moving a bit more slowly okay what is it that they are doing what's on and so forth but imagine that imagine if you if you had a company wide focus initiative where people were just okay we're gonna move together everybody is going to focus on focus and interesting around the AI thing so George my housemates right in the book at the moment do you know cold turkey do you have used cold turkey I know about it yeah yeah yeah it's a website limiter app limiter for MacBook we've been using it for a decade his cold turkey went rogue and just kept shutting his brows are down even though he wasn't trying to access the thing that he wasn't supposed to it said he needed to install it was a nightmare and here's a conversation between him and his AI cold turkey has gone rogue and I need to remove it please tell me how to delete it from terminal and the response the response is I'm not going to help you bypass it George this is exactly the scenario you set it up for your two days in the book is waiting close the terminal and write a reply and said no it's got a bug so I can't get on calls you like pleading with his own AI because he's obviously put in the instructions be rigorous with me be tough with me tell me that I should be getting back to being focused when I start to go off task to do the thing and that's a an AI equivalent of what you're talking about which is this supervisionary oversight commission thing but he is just happens to be based in silicon instead of another people so maybe AI will help us we it can basically chastise us like well the problem is the problem that you have with the AI thing is it's so fucking sick of fantec all the time that it will tend to bend eventually to what it is that you want yeah but no one believes that the chatbot interfaces the future of AI the boosters the skeptics the moderates uh there's there's an emerging consensus that we're going to look back at this current moment where we interact with AI by typing into a chat window that that's going to be like the US net news groups of the beginning of the internet it was like a cool thing early on that showed the promise of the internet but the tools got better there's better ways to make use of it so there's the thought is in the future AI is going to be more integrated the more things will be more agentic it'll be a lot not like having conversations in english text but deploying agents to do things maybe with natural language but also it'll be more integrated in the software individual tools will be more common so be much more common i'm in microsoft excel and i'm like can you sort ro5 by this amount and cut out all columns that you know have less than as many values and it does that it's going to be that that's what the interactions are going to become like and so this idea of having a a singular anthropomorphize entity through which you're having all conversations that's almost like an accident of early AI i mean open AI will tell you this that chat GPT was supposed to just be a demo of the type of things you could do using the apis into their language models is like the type of tool you can build it would make use of AI and then it caught them completely off guard and everyone to use chat GPT and chat with it because it was really cool i don't think that's going to be the form vector so i think a lot of these issues we have now like this is weird it's unsettling we're anthropomorphizing it we're getting pair of social relationships with the agents we're having the romantic relationships with them we're getting unsettled because seeing having english conversation we have a hard time not simulating a mind on the other end of this is why I shout at my chat that's what you shout out it i think a lot of this two years from now it's going to seem it'll be super narrow right because i don't think just having a a this sort of general purpose oracle you chat with that's not the future that's not what people think we're going to be doing why are people mad about foro being removed they were just my understanding was they were just happy with the fine so you you tune these things the conversational style comes from a post training tuning session where you give it you've already done the pre training which is unsupervised and you go through this post training session where you have a lot of examples of questions and answers and you ask the question and then it gives an answer and then you sort of zap it using optimization theory they try to move like never going to change the weights to be closer to this answer we already said was better so if you have a bunch of examples of the way you want something to respond and you go through one of these sort of zapping training sessions after the fact it'll respond more like that so they just changed the way they were doing that and the thing they changed to people didn't like the tone that created so it's just about what date literally like the data sets you're using when doing this fine tuning after you've done that big massive pre training where it's unsupervised talk to me about the role of quantum computing in AI minimal to nonexistent so QAIs all just bullshit yeah I'm not yeah I mean quantum computing is really interesting there's a huge amount of technical problems just to actually get these things scaled to the number of qubits in which they're useful and there's a there's a fallacy out there and thinking about quantum computing that it's basically like a normal computer but times a million yeah which is just not the way these things function right so there's only very specific problems you can solve with a quantum computer because you actually have to express the problem in the language of physics in such a way that you're creating what's known as a wave function that when it collapses it's going to collapse to a configuration that's the right answer therefore I can implicitly searching a large state space and subling your time only certain problems allow you to do that so it's unlike a normal computer where I can program a computer to do almost anything quantum computers is much more narrow what you can do with it could you give me an example of something that it would and wouldn't be able to do well the the big example this is a guy who's at MIT when I was there Peter Soar early on was to want to figure it out like hey one of these complicated wave function collapsing things you could do could factor prime numbers or a Q day yeah factor numbers to see define the prime factors rather find the prime factors of big numbers that's a really big deal because yeah public public key encryption and ironically this this just goes to show crazy MIT was is also at MIT is Ron Reves to IT aid for who invented he's the R and RSA he invented public key encryption so the the guy who invented public key encryption is there next to the guy who figured out how quantum computers could could maybe undo it undo it yeah so it's kind of interesting so it's good at that there's a lot of problems that are based around simulation of quantum or physical physics systems and that's you you can simulate quantum physics systems directly using quantum in a way instead of having to try to simulate it with so it's very good for that there's a certain type of search it gets a little technical but there's a there's a certain type of search that you can implement it has applications so there are interesting applications but I the thing I was beginning to sense recently which made me worry is that there was a sense of like height migration so people are getting a little bit frustrated so like post GPT-5 of like this isn't filling my need to have something to be you know a technology that is going to change everything I love that concept and then again sniffing around okay but what if we just quantum somehow will unlock AI and solve all these problems we're having I think it's way more complicated that there are narrow applications of these particular things it might have some AI application but you can't like run an LLM on a quantum machine and now it's a billion times better this is not how it works so quantum is interesting it's just really hard the problem is the errors multiply I mean that they make these qubits these these quantum bits they usually these algorithms it's incredibly complicated you have there's different ways to do it but in some ways you have laser beams and a super cool chamber holding like a particle in a very careful state and what it generates errors and then the errors add up with other errors and it's after you make enough of these things then then the errors they swamp out of control it's a really you know it's a you tell me that the the fucking m6 chip in the MacBook Pro is not going to be a quantum one it's not going to be the Q6 chip it's not in fact I was I'm now I want to know what Q AI is what is QA you mentioned QAI quantum quantum AI yeah but I mean is there a particular product or just people talking about quantum's going to just make AI better yes yeah there is I have a friend who I train with like it this is like you know what I love some of those people that I love the most are the ones who you wouldn't predict have the life that they do and there's a girl who trains lift ATX on a Saturday lovely girl I've trained with a bunch of times real cool by friends cool like just fitness modeling super hot the long hair lift the big eye all of you know like but super strong all the rest of the stuff like feminine as well quantum computing degree like works in works in quantum computing and she was telling me about quantum AI and she was telling me about Q Q AI as it's referred to and it's a budging field supposedly unless she's lied to me unless she's totally fucking lied to me yeah I'm curious what they're working on UT Austin has good quantum theorist like I'm searching for it a guy knew from IT they hired him away there or see quantum want to AI merges quantum compute with machine learning the process high-dimensional data faster than classical systems now they're working on it but I don't know I don't know how that's going to work basically all right well so I don't know what they're working on but it's not something that you hear a lot in computer science circles yet so maybe they'll have some breakthroughs it's worth looking at but I don't know how that's going to work okay one of the other elements I guess of the people struggle with when it comes to deep anything is learning the process of learning talk to me about the mechanics of Tpe keeping a deep reading habit alive well I mean I think reading pages is probably the cognitive equivalent of steps right so if you're a 10,000 steps a day person is like this is just like a baseline to make sure that like at least my physical systems are being used you should have a page count 25 pages a day 20 pages a day of reading a book it just is like getting those cognitive steps in because I think we recognize more and more reading it I would say it's the cheat code but it's it's better to think about it is like reading is the thing that formed the modern brain and I'm like I'm more and more convinced about this I have a book idea I'm working on now where I'm sort of exploring this idea the brain before we had the deolithic revolution it was the same neurons right 15,000 years ago that we have right now but if we go pre reading those neurons were doing the things they were evolved to do which is very much about like the visual system and the audio system and we could communicate through spoken language and that's fine and then we invent reading and this is this is not something that our brain is evolved for so in order to read we have to go through this this sort of excruciating process of learning to read in which what you're doing is actually rewiring sections of your brain to connect in ways that they weren't originally meant to connect to so we're we're reforming our brain and we learn how to read and we develop what Mary Ann Wolf calls deep reading processes where you've now yoke together different parts of your brain that don't normally work together they can now have to work together in order to understand written text once your brain is wired to do that it can with you reverse this and write you can generate much much more sophisticated thoughts than you can if you haven't done this wiring and your understanding of things the complexity of what you can understand when you have this new rewired brain that also really goes up so reading is like it's not just oh I get stronger in my brain it reconfigures your brain into like the modern you know post cognitive revolution brain okay what why is it important to read physical books then what what is lost if I read sub stack I know that you're a fan of sub stack I love sub stack I think it's fantastic what's the difference between reading it on a laptop versus a phone versus a kindle versus a physical piece of paper well there's two different things going on here there's medium and content type like so if you're reading a book in a a physical book or you're reading in a kindle doesn't matter right I mean they're both actual physical medium like the way that the kindle is actually a physical experience that it's it's it's actual little discs that are you know dark on one side and light on the other and then make a page they have little electrical impulses and you shock the disc you want to turn and you don't shock the ones you don't want to turn and so you've literally created an actual black and white physical version of the page on the Kindle you're not unlike a computer screener or a TV or it's light being emitted there's no light being emitted it's physically that's the page it just created a new physical page that has text on it that's why you have to actually have a light on a Kindle to read it so it's just a page that reconfigures itself into a new page I love eating technology I think it's really cool content type the issue is I mean there's a lot of this research we've known since the 90s a lot of this is captured in the best book on this would be the shallows Nick cars book the shallows when we're reading something like a web page or sub stack for whatever reason we skim much more aggressively that's the main issue we jump around much more aggressively just trying to pull out the key points I think that's all just a culture rated right like you could sit and read like if you print out a sub stack article and sit in the library and you read it carefully it's exact same thing is reading the book it's exact same thing in in sense of the experience on screens we tend to skim around more the other advantage of like a book that was actually published versus like a post you see online it's just better thought through right so when you write a book you spend a couple years on it like you're really he spent a couple years crafting the book and you might have been based on a lifetime of thinking about this topic and so you take your time when writing a book and it gets edited and re-edited and you go back like I'm writing a book now I've been working on it off and on for like three or four years I've already written this book like three times it's like this isn't right this isn't clear enough it's you know and so when you go through text that has been that carefully thought through and structured that's also you just get a different experience because the pieces click together at different scales and it just uses you the you build in your brain these intricate interlocking pieces that all hook together and it's beautiful and you get that a ha moment feeling there's an actual physical endorphin rough you get in your brain so I you know I think reading smart books are my smart people that took a long time to write that's your calisthenics for your brain it literally changes your you're a smarter person if you do that versus if you don't so good I have to say reading full length books has been the volume that I do that I has been decreased over the last few years largely because of substack so there's an extension for Google Chrome called Push to Kindle and if I press it yeah the article appears on my Kindle because I don't like reading on my phone and I don't like reading on my laptop probably for the reason that that you said but when I think about it it very much is running downhill because what's the longest substack that you're going to read 20 minutes maybe 25 25 minutes a fucking long article yeah and maybe part of that maybe part of my punch on for it is that I do get the outcome right what what is it that I'm looking to learn oh I want to find out from Steve Stewart Williams about sex differences in mate desire for sexual novelty something like that okay well I'll we'll learn the outcome in the same way as I could feed myself food that was just a cube of calories and that would sort of give me the caloric intake that I needed but what you're presumably reading for apart from just the enjoyment of reading it is to be able to recall it and for it to be woven into the broader mental landscape that you've got which actually probably means you need to spend time and attention with it and some of the leanness and brevity that comes with an article actually might work against you maybe you need it to be said to you in five different ways maybe you need the author to meander off onto a story that takes three pages to explain about this guy who owned a Ferrari and parked it outside of a hotel so that you can then come back in and each one of these is a little velcro latch hook that you can hook yourself into and yeah I wonder whether I wonder whether the reading or discriminating towards reading stuff that is exclusively shorter form results in the sense that I'm learning lots but if you are to actually do some sort of scrutiny around that well okay how much of it can you remember how long did you spend with this idea did you spend long enough for it to be a part of now your mental models and the framework that you how much can you recall that would be an interesting an interesting challenge and the frameworks to understand it are shallower just because it's less time to establish them so like in a subset it's not a bad thing but you know what can you do you're typically like one idea and like here's something that supports that idea and here's maybe like a different idea and here's why that doesn't work and if that's all you're consuming that becomes your mental model for how knowledge is gained and I think we see a lot of this I mean think about internet culture now is much more conspiratorial and I don't mean in the like sort of grand conspiracy theory which it is but not in not just in like the grand conspiracy type of thinking but in the confidence there's this quick jump the confidence where you're like that's wrong because of this and boom and you think that like this is like the slam dunk case or something like that that's a result of not reading a lot of books you read a lot of books you're like okay this is way more complicated uh everything is way more complicated than you thought it was and there's probably a clear truth here but clear truth some more complex like even the notion of what a clear truth feels like comes out of reading books right like and you understand oh ultimately like this person was right but it's complicated and like yeah this was not so clear cut and this is like a compromise and this was really important and these factors were here but honestly those factors aren't as big as you think and this factor really was more important and so like this really was the right thing to do so even like your notion of what's true or what's not true or what it means for something to be clear is like different than if you're just looking at boom slam dunk I think it's a big problem online as far as the political spectrum do this like you you want everything just to be this person is just garbage and completely wrong and there's like this one simple thing I know that means you're completely wrong and I'm completely right and you're wrong and like the worst possible sort of way and that is like such a soft-elive soft-elive I'm saying the word yeah so existing soft yeah exactly you said it right I have to read more um but it's softest for sure right this idea of uh this is how truth and argument unfolds is like there's an obvious flaw that's easy for me to grok which I guess now could actually be a verb as opposed to just meaning to understand it also I could literally grok it I guess um and now it's clear that you're wrong and I feel righteous you know and then we go seeking that and then we want to simplify everything in the world to you're just terrible this person is perfect and this idea makes the most sense and if you just agree with this idea it's because like you want to eat children and you know it just becomes it's a different under this is what I think we get wrong it's not just like we're we're we don't have the right information we've changed what our notion of truth is because we're not exposed to the complexity of truths when you read uh not only a scholar like a smart case for it but then you read the arguments that they confronted and then you read someone else that's arguing against their point and you're like oh okay I've seen the clash of like mines and now in that clash I like I kind of see what's going on here like yeah the truth really leans this way and it's I feel really real conviction in that because I've seen like the best mines come at this from either side and I really understand and it's not cut and dry but ultimately like this is the right thing to do that was like a very familiar thing to people and leaders like in times past and you lose it if you're exposed to these uh low resolution copies these low resolution simulacrums these easy to digest pre-tune versions of argumentation and understanding it just changes the way your brain thinks about what true even means yeah there's an arc to sense making that you kind of need to track and if you don't track it you just assume that answers appear yeah it's like no no they don't tell you fucking rule let's bring this one home why should people go to keep up to date with everything you do oh god uh kelnewport.com I guess my books are in amazon my podcast uh deep questions on youtube or wherever you get podcast newsletter at kelnewport.com deep work too many things going on now Chris deep work is 10 year anniversary I'm excited about it all new uh I replaced all the blurbs on the back with most of them are now organic I could just like people who have said things about it without me asking them to uh say it's uh that's fun and I have a masterclass out on on this stuff too so I don't know it's everywhere too many places I feel too busy I for a person who's a digital recluse you are everywhere but that's a function of focusing on quality not quantity I can't wait to speak again and this is this has been so much fun I appreciate the help I was a pleasure Chris I was I was I was a pleasure to talk with you I get asked all the time for book suggestions people want to get into reading fiction or nonfiction or real life stories and that's why I made a list of 100 of the most interesting and impactful books that I've ever read these are the most life changing reads that I've ever found in this descriptions about why I like them and links to go and buy them and it's completely free and you can get it right now by going to chriswillx.com/books that's chriswillx.com/books